Baylor Lariat asks for vote on intelligent design
| November 16, 2007 | Posted by O'Leary under Intelligent Design |
If you go to the campus rag today, at the top you’ll find the following poll on which you can vote:
What do you think?
How should Baylor approach intelligent design research?
Encourage it
Discourage it
Prohibit it
Support itUpdate 8:38 am est Saturday November 17:
How should Baylor approach intelligent design research?
How should Baylor approach intelligent design research? Encourage it 1001 Discourage it 236 Support it 70 Prohibit it 41 1 1 1 Original story follows:
At 11:16 am EST, these were the results:
Encourage it 42
Discourage it 22
Prohibit it 6
Support it 4Total votes: 74
The article accompanies a rambling story – more about Dembski, Marks, and the Baylor admin than they probably know themselves.
Results at 6:20 pm EST:
How should Baylor approach intelligent design research?
| How should Baylor approach intelligent design research? | ||
| Discourage it |  |
|
| Encourage it | |
|
| Support it | |
|
| Prohibit it | |
|
| Total Votes Cast: 325 | ||
646 p.m. EST: Anika Smith of Discovery Institute calls academic freedom at Baylor a sham and urges alumni to reconsider donations: “Every dollar you donate to Baylor helps to enable the continued persecution of Prof. Marks.”
Well yes but – here I am momentarily taken aback – Anika, I thought that was the kind of thing donors wanted. I mean, they can give money to a respectable Baptist university (which just tickles Aunt Marge, right?). And they NEVER need to worry that Baylor is going to kick them in the face by creating a genuine problem for the 78% of eminent evolutionists who are pure naturalists (no God) by showing – using the methods of science – that their big idea cannot work. And if that ever happens, why, Baylor faculty might be distinguishable from Dan Dennett and Sam Harris.
Either that wouldn’t be cool or cool would change.
Here’s the latest at 6:49 EST:
How should Baylor approach intelligent design research?
| How should Baylor approach intelligent design research? | ||
| Encourage it | |
|
| Discourage it | |
|
| Support it | |
|
| Prohibit it | |
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Total Votes Cast: 398 | ||
Better keep checking in yourself here .
7:19 EST:
| should Baylor approach intelligent design research? | ||
| Encourage it | |
|
| Discourage it | |
|
| Support it | |
|
| Prohibit it | |
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
52 Responses to Baylor Lariat asks for vote on intelligent design
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
bornagain [re 27]. The cannibals were almost certainly NOT atheists. There were probably animasts of some sort.
jpark320:
There does seem to be a problem there… if it is not science than it is someone’s personal views- and hence you can’t discriminate based on those views. Discrimination in beliefs in ID would be comparable to being fired for believing in aliens or holding to a particular religion.
I don’t think many opponents to ID view ID as just a silly claim – even if they disagree with it. The loudest critics make that arguemtnt but thats because the compare ID to biblical creationists. This is their lose, and based more on an anti-religion philosophy than a pro-science one.
I think ID is asking important questions, that can be answered scientifically. Some people are taking ID seriously enough to answer these questions- whether they agree or disagree with the implications.
BarryA I think the Apostle Paul disagrees with you. I suppose I will cast my lot with him. I still think that anyone who worships false gods is at heart an athiest and knows better but is in rebellion against the One True God. Animist is just another way to say One Who Denies The Existence Of The One True God. Or an atheist.
I’ve been thinking about this situation a good bit the past few days, and I’ve decided that as a good Peircean, the most important thing is “do not block the way of inquiry!” So yes, why not do research in intelligent design? Go ahead! I’m skeptical, sure, but show me I’m wrong.
But, if you’re going to support or perform research in design theory, please do it for the right reasons. Do it because it’s better science than neo-Darwinism. Don’t do it because of “worldviews” or culture wars.
The debates over materialism, atheism, nihilism — whatever other “isms” one wants to consider — are all utterly irrelevant. (Despite all the fun I have in participating in those debates.) Either ID is good science, or it isn’t. Finding out which it is the only reason it’s worth encouragement. And actually doing some ID research, seeing what happens, what new avenues of inquiry are opened up, etc. is the only way to find out whether ID is good science or not. There’s no a priori method to determining whether something will advance inquiry.
Hi Acquiesce,
“I have yet to see random changes selected in the absence of intelligence to produce high information content.”
I don’t believe you ever will. Random changes produce only a-contextual non-informational Kolmogorov complexity (NOISE) in digitized/quantized systems (such as DNA). “Randomness” as I see it, is a uniform probability distribution over a set of possible outcomes. Non-informational K-complexity is merely a digitized (pixilated) reflection of the uniform distribution (randomness).
While information can indeed be stored in a compressed K-complex code, such code is always specific (error correction/protection needed) and such code always corresponds to an external global context or system in which the specific code has meaning or function. “Randomness” as in random mutation, random gene duplications, random genetic drift etc.– while perfect as sources of non-specific, a-contextual, genetic noise, are perfectly worthless as sources of information (SIGNAL). IMO
William Brookfield,
Thanks for the good information-theoretic points. I’ve been thinking over the past few days that if the Darwinists are claiming creation of complex specified information through what is essentially a stochastic algorithmic process, shouldn’t they be able to cite a mathematical theorem that allows for such a thing? Curiously, neo-Darwinism seems to be the one branch of 20th-century physical science in which high level mathematics didn’t “get there first”. I guess it’s because Darwinism is so special, in a class all its own. But still, given that evolution is the longstanding Queen of the Sciences, shouldn’t its handmaid known as mathematics have caught up by now? Where is the theorem of CSI creation via stochastic algorithm? I mean, there must be one, yes? I can’t believe that Darwinists would just go off half-cocked about all this! Would they?
Ignore your teeth and they will go away. Ignore ID and one day you will wake up in an ID-friendly world not knowing what happened.
But anyway- people who would only want to “discourage it” or “prohibit it” so that their lies & misrepresentations will not be exposed. Otherwise the tactic would be to get it out in the open, openly discuss it and beat it back with data, evidence and observations.
To Carl Sachs- you miss the point. The point being is that scientists should be allowed to come to a design inference if that is what their research warrants.
Once a design inference is reached then science can proceed down that investigative path.
Guillermo Gonzalez is a prime example. Here is a scientist, who was a Sagonite, but via his scientific research came to a design inference. He followed the data, evidence and observations and now he gets snubbed for his efforts.
That sort of nonsense has to be stopped. And anyone who wants to “break out the brass knucles and steel-toed boots” to kick & beat people like GG should be committed or imprisoned.
Matteo
“Thanks for the good information”
You’re welcome Matteo. I personally think Darwinists are in a psychological state of denial regarding both the existence of CSI and the profound weakness of their theory (as a theory of origins). Both Natural Selective destruction (that filters out {destroys} the unfit) and Random Mutation (that scrambles/destroys genetic information) are destruction functions. Originating/creating requires (context sensitive) construction/instruction not (context insentitive) destruction.
“The cannibals were almost certainly NOT atheists. There were probably animists of some sort.”
And they probably believed in god and gods, as have all known human societies (with the exception of modern secularists). And they also probably had moral codes as strict or stricter than our own. Just very different.
I really am not sure, but thought I had read that the of cannibalism described here is and was very rare. Most cannibalism, I thought, was part of sacred rituals.
But in any case, it’s wrong to imply that not being Christian means being amoral and cruel, or cannibalistic. Most non-Christian societies have been and are as moral and decent as ours. And the Catholic Church did plenty of cruel things in its long history.
I am not complaining about Christianity. Just saying it’s very wrong to assume people can’t be decent and moral unless they are Christian.
Atheism has been extremely rare, until recently. I don’t agree at all with the philosophy of modern atheism. But I do not think modern atheists are any more likely to be immoral than believers. Maybe someone has statistics on that.
Whether people are moral or not is probably unrelated to whether or not they believe in god, or what god they believe in.
My reason for not being an atheist is that I think atheism is incorrect. Not because I think it’s healthier to believe in god, or better for society. You can’t convince people to believe in something they think is false. Atheists are not going to convert to Christianity because they want to stop practicing cannibalism.
William I am in full agreement. i think in the the darwinists world that there would be no way to even claim that knowledge is possible. it makes much more sense, and i am in full agreement with BA, that theism (the ONE True God) predicts that knowledge is possible only through the grace and mercy of an ominpotent omniscient omnipresent trinity.
I think we should continue hammering the liberals on this point: if the universe is just mutation and selection then how can we claim knowledge is possible, since knowledge is CSI and is irreducibly complex as Dennyse has pointed out (where is it stored? Nowhere! It is not matter!!!) and if knowledge is impossible, then why are they trying to teach our children that they are just glorified reified rarefied hairless apes, so that they will go act like one and pull a columbine or something.
Darwinism is a culture of death and i would not be surprised if most women that have abortions are darwinists or at least liberal.
Joseph, I don’t see how I missed the point — perhaps I phrased it poorly. I was trying to make two points there.
Firstly, I was saying that research into design as an explanation should be encouraged. Maybe it can be shown that it’s a superior inference to the best explanation over neo-Darwinism. In any event I think that ID researchers should be welcome to try, if for no other reason that on grounds on academic freedom. Besides which, many ideas that are now part of accepted science were thought of as crazy were they were first introduced.
Secondly, I was saying that this is the only good reason for supporting research into intelligent design. All the rest — about “liberalism” or “materialism” or “atheism” or “nihilism” — is, and ought to be, irrelevant to the central questions of whether design theory is a viable research program.
Carl that is only true in a vaccuum. Since it is obvious to even both sides then we very likely cannot distill the debate into the terms you wish to pertinent.
Darwinists and liberals in general wish to be free of responsibility to God. They deny all of the scientific evidence for a designed creation so that they can continue to pursue the path of the flesh. Humans are fallible after all!!! How can we pretend as if this were not a major issue and simply focus on evidence which is already being interpreted by the establishment and teh media as saying exactly the opposite of what it truly says (the heavens give testimony to the glory of god).
Hi Salon
“I think we should continue hammering the liberals”
Thankyou for your comments, however I am questioning Darwins theory of science. I am not taking sides wrt politics (liberal vs republican). I am not sure where I stand politically and I certainly don’t want to start “hammering” myself — nor to be “hammered” by others. Why can’t we just respectfully share our science and our philosophical thoughts instead of “hammering?”
William
I just watched a few chapters of the NOVA propaganda piece and it should be clear to anyone who is paying attention that this debate is not about the science (if it was, ID would clearly win!!!) but it is about the materialist religion attempting to subvert the public square.
If we could ‘share’ then ID would be published in scientific journals but the darwinists will do anything they can get away with to prevent that. They know how precarious their position is! I hope the next president will make this a priority and stamp out the evil satanic influences of liberal darwinism. I have children that will be in school soon and I am seriously considering home scholing them to keep them from being indoctrinated with athiest materialism.
Hi Solon,
Sorry for spelling your name wrong on the last post.
I share your concerns wrt materialist nihlism and I agree that the NOVA program was severely biased against ID. I just believe in being respectful toward others at all times. I consider this the best and most effective approach if we are to develop a respect-based society.
Hi Carl Sachs,
Thankyou for your comments. When I question materialistic nihilism I do so on the basis my study of psychology and sociology both of which are sciences. Maybe what you would like to see is the DI (or some other institute) develop a sister program that studies the effects of nihilistic philosophies on culture. These would be studies in the fields of psychology and sociology not information theory or biology. What do you think?
To Carl Sachs-
My apologies for misunderstanding your comment.
Thanks for the clarification.
Well, the poll has now been linked by PZ. As I pointed out in post #8, the results would swing- and have.
No belly aching here- science isn’t a popularity contest anyway.
In re: (44)
Although I have worries similar to many other contributors here about nihilism as a cultural problem, “nihilistic philosophies” have nothing to do with it except as scapegoats. It used to be Nietzsche and existentialists who were scapegoats for nihilism; now Darwin’s been added. But they are scapegoats for a complicated social, economic, and political condition whose real causes lie elsewhere.
This is not to say that ideas don’t matter, but they don’t matter as much as we may think do. A philosophy is, as I like to think of it, “its own time captured in thought.” That’s as true of Aristotle as it is of Nietzsche. In reading Nietzsche, one encounters the problems and challenges of late 19th century European culture as refracted through the prism of a singular consciousness. (And also sometimes through the prism of what is unconscious.)
So while I agree that nihilism is a problem, I don’t think that evaluating “nihilistic philosophies” will reveal anything about its causes. If anything, “nihilistic philosophies” — if there are any — are an effect of nihilism, not a cause.
Then again, I’m basically a critical theorist, a social democrat, a Darwinist of some description, and a Jewish atheist. So please take whatever I say with as many grains of salt as you’d like!
Darwin is looking up from below- and is very very happy.
Us pagans don’t go to church on Sunday and have a lot more free time to vote.
As of Sunday afternoon…
Prohibit it 1284
Encourage it 1077
Discourage it 1005
Support it 87
Gloppy
Finch are you a pagan? i will be praying for you.
How can darwinism be anything but nihilism? jesus christ offers us hope and this is the only non-nihilistic way to live. all else is dust in the wind.
Sorry. I meant to say “Us vegans don’t eat perch on Sunday.”
Gloppy
Sorry to hear about your job, Bill. I think an institute should be set up that represents the interests of the Intelligent Design movement. The institute would be run on grants and donations from God-fearing patrons around the world, who are interested in expanding the horizons of scientific research and using intelligent design theories to find a cure to AIDS. Instead of channeling its money into propaganda, like the atheist mainstream science machine does, this Intelligent Design institute would use grants, donations, and income from book/DVD sales to fund much awaited scientific research into finding the designer. I personally believe it will not be aliens.